[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-09, 18:38, said:

Yes, this usage is employed entirely to fool people.

Exactly. A reduction from 4% to 2% is a 2% reduction if you want to clam it down and a 50% reduction if you want to let it sound like something.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2013-April-10, 02:19, said:

Exactly. A reduction from 4% to 2% is a 2% reduction if you want to clam it down and a 50% reduction if you want to let it sound like something.

It depends what you're talking about (and to an extent the size of the numbers) which is sensible.

Example, the rate of death in the population from a rare cancer has gone from a very small number to 1/3 of that due to a new vitamin treatment that has other benefits as well.

Saying that this is a 66% reduction seems reasonable rather than a 0.000001% reduction.

Hypothetical company:

Receipts 1BN+1 -> 1.5BN
Costs 1BN -> 1BN
Company worth 10BN -> 12.5BN

So the measure of performance that is calculated by profit/company worth goes from 1/10BN to 1/25, is it really sensible to claim an increase with an awful lot of zeroes on it rather than just under 4%.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-10, 03:31, said:

It depends what you're talking about (and to an extent the size of the numbers) which is sensible.

Example, the rate of death in the population from a rare cancer has gone from a very small number to 1/3 of that due to a new vitamin treatment that has other benefits as well.

Not sure what you are trying to say here...

Quote

Saying that this is a 66% reduction seems reasonable rather than a 0.000001% reduction.

Also the first is correct and the second is not, unless you are talking explicitly about the portion of the population who would get this cancer. Still you would say something like "It reduces the rate from 3 people in a million to one in a million." Percentages are not normally used for extremely large or small values; that is why we have scientific notation.

Don't understand the rest of the post and don't think it is relevant.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2013-April-09, 19:39, said:

MOne listing says "existing wall to wall carpeting". Think about that for a moment. The stairs were carpeted. So, I guess technically, you could say that "existing wall to wall carpeting" means that whatever wall to wall carpeting now exists (in this case none exists) that's what you get.

I think that "wall to wall carpeting" means carpeting that is permanently installed and nailed down, as opposed to carpets that can be rolled up and removed with ease. Perhaps that is not how the layperson thinks about it, but using the phrase above to include whatever carpeting is there is a lot more efficient than listing every area that is carpeted in this manner (at least in a fairly brief description of the house for sale; the contract will likely list all carpets, appliances, light fixtures, window treatments etc which will be included in the sale).

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-10, 07:01, said:

Don't understand the rest of the post and don't think it is relevant.

(Btw I am a trained statistician)

This is a presentation thing much more than what is technically correct.

Both uses of the figures are useful in different situations which is what I was trying to represent and yes you use per million for very small numbers.

[y66]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-10, 07:12, said:

I think that "wall to wall carpeting" means carpeting that is permanently installed and nailed down, as opposed to carpets that can be rolled up and removed with ease. Perhaps that is not how the layperson thinks about it, but using the phrase above to include whatever carpeting is there is a lot more efficient than listing every area that is carpeted in this manner (at least in a fairly brief description of the house for sale; the contract will likely list all carpets, appliances, light fixtures, window treatments etc which will be included in the sale).

True and definitely efficient. In this case, it would have been just as efficient and less disingenuous to have said nothing at all about the carpeting. Referring to "existing wall-to-wall carpeting" when there is only stairway carpeting is like referring to existing mountain views for an apartment that looks out on the local dump.

[blackshoe]

Well, if the local dump contains a mountain of trash…

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-April-09, 19:39, said:

if he used words in ways that no one else in the universe uses them it would be difficult to communicate effectively.

Since when are sales people interested in "communicating effectively"? They're interested in making a sale. As long as they can spin their words so they're not out-and-out lies, they'll say whatever it takes.

There are probably web sites that translate common phrases from real estate listings and personal ads into "what they really mean".

[Vampyr]

y66, on 2013-April-10, 09:32, said:

True and definitely efficient. In this case, it would have been just as efficient and less disingenuous to have said nothing at all about the carpeting. Referring to "existing wall-to-wall carpeting" when there is only stairway carpeting is like referring to existing mountain views for an apartment that looks out on the local dump.

But there was carpeting on the stairs, and the point was that this carpeting would not be removed, but would be included in the sale. I think we are talking about a listing that was maybe a page of text, not a detailed inventory of all included fittings.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-10, 08:18, said:

(Btw I am a trained statistician)

Then maybe what you said was relevant but I still didn't understand it!

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-10, 11:08, said:

But there was carpeting on the stairs, and the point was that this carpeting would not be removed, but would be included in the sale. I think we are talking about a listing that was maybe a page of text, not a detailed inventory of all included fittings.

Yes, it was from a listing. And the agent made that point. Not enough room to be really precise, he said. Sure.

I'll stick with my assertion that doing such things causes trouble where no trouble needs to be. I see a listing that says wall to wall carpeting, I see a townhouse and I see carpeting on the stairs. I get annoyed. Since no one but a total idiot believes anything said by a real estate agent the dismay passes and we move on, but I will also stick with my statement that if I had to deal regularly with such people I would go nuts.

Many years ago, before the internet, a friend tried his hand at dating via a dating service. He described the match between what the prospective date had written and what was actually the case as being like a real estate add: If they don't advertise it they don't have it, and if they have what is advertised the description is highly exaggerated.
He is still single.

[GreenMan]

gwnn, on 2013-April-09, 14:27, said:

We discussed that two or three posts above yours, GreenMan, talk about a pet peeve

It looked as if some folks may still not be clear on it so I thought I'd restate it a slightly different way. I apologize if I was just repeating.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2013-April-10, 11:25, said:

Since no one but a total idiot believes anything said by a real estate agent the dismay passes and we move on, but I will also stick with my statement that if I had to deal regularly with such people I would go nuts.

Well, I'm guessing that you don't always keep your cool, because

Quote

I think my wife was a little concerned about my reaction but I stayed calm.

I am also guessing that this woman experiences a lot of stress.

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on 2013-April-10, 11:25, said:

Since no one but a total idiot believes anything said by a real estate agent....

I am going to have to pass this along to the real estate agents that I deal with.

[kenberg]

Quote

I am also guessing that this woman experiences a lot of stress.

I can only go by what I have been told, but I believe you are incorrect here. Part of keeping my cool comes from being clear, as I was with the real estate person, about when I expect better. I did not yell, or threaten to leave, or call him names, but he has no doubt that I do not like to see carpeting on the stairs described as wall to wall carpeting. I recommend this approach of calm but candid expression of disappointment.

As to whether my wife is under a lot of stress, which I suppose you mean from me, I assume you would not accept a denial at face value so I'll pass on that. Perhaps I can say that at times when there has been stress from outside sources I have been very glad for her presence in my life, and I have every reason to believe that this feeling is reciprocated. But there is no reason at all that you should believe me so I will let this go and I hope you will as well.

[kenberg]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-10, 12:03, said:

I am going to have to pass this along to the real estate agents that I deal with.

I am probably overstating the situation a bit but good God I find dealing with them frustrating. Several years back we did move and one place we looked at had an awful smell, like moldy something, who knows. The agent kept referring to this odor as a distraction. I kept telling her we were wasting our time here.

Foul odors are a distraction, carpeting on the stairs is wall to wall carpeting, it's very disorienting.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-10, 12:03, said:

I am going to have to pass this along to the real estate agents that I deal with.

And they can commiserate with used car dealers.

[GreenMan]

kenberg has a point: People who are not RE agents would expect "wall-to-wall carpeting" to mean "Some, perhaps most, rooms have carpeting installed rather than bare flooring." Finding it only on a staircase would make me think the copy writer was aiming to deceive with more than just the expected puffery.

[onoway]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-10, 07:12, said:

I think that "wall to wall carpeting" means carpeting that is permanently installed and nailed down, as opposed to carpets that can be rolled up and removed with ease. Perhaps that is not how the layperson thinks about it, but using the phrase above to include whatever carpeting is there is a lot more efficient than listing every area that is carpeted in this manner (at least in a fairly brief description of the house for sale; the contract will likely list all carpets, appliances, light fixtures, window treatments etc which will be included in the sale).

maybe so, but the implication for most people would likely lead them to expect at least one room with permanently installed carpet, not just the stairs. So it isn't more efficient as then everything has to be doublechecked to see if the agent is using words in the way that most people use them or if he/she is using words in a sort of technically accurate but having an unexpected spin on them which makes everything s/he says suspect.

oops I wrote the post then got busy with something else and all the othe posts didn't show up until after I came back and posted this one. So apologies for belaboring the point.

[TimG]

I googled "times fewer" moments ago and the first offering included this headline:

Nuclear Fallout Kills 370 Times Fewer People Than Coal
Reading the beginning of the article makes it clear that what is meant is that use of coal would have killed 370 times as many people as use of nuclear power.

What I would prefer is the use of 1/370th (or a switch to make it "370 time as many"). Just as I would prefer the use of "one half" instead of "two times fewer".

It being a "pet peeve" of mine doesn't necessarily mean I am right and others are wrong. I think of a pet peeve as something that bothers me significantly more than it would bother someone else, or even something that is acceptable to many others. Like leaving the toilet seat up, annoys me, but others won't be annoyed and still others think is it perfectly acceptable -- there is no right or wrong.


Let's compare "two times fewer" with "four times fewer". It seems to me that the difference between these two statements is "two times", that is "four times fewer" is "twice as many" as "two times fewer". But, look at this in an absolute sense: suppose we start with 100 and compare "two time fewer", which is 50 fewer; and "four times fewer" which is 75 fewer. 75 is not twice as many as 50.